3 comments:

I do take issue with you thinking this is an Albertan problem. BC has the Pine beetle and I'm pretty sure Vancouver eats energy. Toronto consumes carbon fuel at a tremendous rate as does every metropolis in Canada, most of which are much bigger than Calgary/Edmonton.Much like the USA in its war on drugs, you blame the suppliers for supplying what the consumer demands. Would there be a supply of cocaine if the demand wasn't there? Would there be a requirement for all carbon fuels if the demand wasn't there?This problem is solely an issue of the population being too lazy to change their habits. Yes there are propagandists at work, but the information is there for those who wish to look. Most of us are too lazy to actually give a crap and are happy to settle for the idea of 'unsettled science". The world is changing thanks to all of us.Sometimes it is easy to point at a scapegoat rather than accept one's own part in a crisis.

harebell, I live in Alberta too. You are correct, it is not just an Alberta problem. However, this province, with its promotion of the tar sands and other oil, failed monitoring of impacts, truck culture, etc should pay particular heed to the costs of such activity.

I mentioned Alberta in my post because the juxtaposition of such a primary contributor to CC suffering a 100 year fire season is compelling.

I have far less problem with the Alberta truck problem for the simple reason that there are fewer folk driving large vehicles in Alberta than in most of the major cities in N America. In conurbations of that scale there should be no vehicles at all, let alone 4x4 goliaths.As for the oil extraction it truly is worrying what the multi-nationals can get away with, but again the term multi-national gives it away. As oil is a globally traded commodity, again the issue comes down to demand. Lose the demand and we lose the devastation. Nobody will extract expensive oil if the cheap oil can satisfy the demand.You are right about your use of the fire though, very opportune.